Cork City flood -again

Level 42

https://twitter.com/CorkSafetyAlert/status/1318462555703181312


https://twitter.com/NeilRedFM/status/1318462491685433344

roundymac

Carrigaline is unpassable at the moment.

opus

Few photos from this morning.











In case you have a bid in on that house for sale on Sharman Crawford St, you might want to reconsider!

Acosta

What a kick in the teeth for businesses after last night's announcement. It's so bloody sad.

TP_CM

Covid, recession, and now a flood. What an unlucky streak for that unfortunate house seller.

chalkitdown1

Sad to see this happening time and time again.

It's almost like a tidal barrier of some sort is required.

Rolling Stone

Very sad to see what has happened this morning. A real kick in the gut for Cork businesses after last night's lockdown announcement. These businesses should now be coming into the most lucrative time of year and you have to wonder how they will survive all of this. My heart really goes out to them. It is hard enough to stay in business at the best of times with so many challenges but it's an impossible situation now.

It is an absolute disgrace that 11 years after the worst flooring in living memory, no flood defence system has yet been constructed in Cork City. There have been objections, studies, plan revisions, delays, court actions, even a European Court ruling on the risks to protected habitats.

This Echo article from November 2019 highlights the frustration with the delay.

https://www.echolive.ie/opinion/A-decade-on-from-the-flood-and-we-are-still-left-high-and-dry-awaiting-a-defence-system-3c2b73b7-adb6-44a5-a531-b03dabacedef-ds

cantalach

The minister responsible made a direct appeal today for the ‘Save Cork City’ campaign to drop their judicial review proceedings but their spokesperson dismissed it.

We *really* need to do a rethink on the concept of 3rd party objectors. I read recently that many or most European countries don’t have the concept at all, i.e. unless you are directly affected by a planning application (e.g. they want to demolish your house) you have no right to object.

TheChizler

I'm fully with SaveCorkCity on this one. Most of their members are businesses and residents in the city so no third party argument.

punisher5112

Would businesses not be better raising there floors if suitable space and height to do so?

corkgsxr

No need for barriers. Go back to dredging the river. Simple solution

cantalach

TheChizler wrote: »

I'm fully with SaveCorkCity on this one. Most of their members are businesses and residents in the city so no third party argument.

Two points:

1. Unless you are *directly* affected, you are a third party.
2. Most Save Cork City member may well be businesses and residents, but that doesn’t mean that most businesses and residents support Save Cork City.

TheChizler

cantalach wrote: »

Two points:

1. Unless you are *directly* affected, you are a third party.
2. Most Save Cork City member may well be businesses and residents, but that doesn’t mean that most businesses and residents support Save Cork City.

1. Anyone living in Cork is directly affected, whether by flooding or the destruction of the historic connection to the river. The importance you assign to either is subjective. If you can arbitrarily block people from objecting based on some subjective measure of how directly affected they are you might as well throw away the whole planning appeals system and let people do what they like.
2. I never said most did, don't know, so I'm not sure why you'd make that point.

Savecorkcity are commonly misrepresented as being against flood defenses full stop, they're not, many of their members are professionals in civil and environmental engineering and have pointed out the flaws in the current plans and a suitable alternative which the council and OPW have constantly failed to engage with. The current plans involve a complex interdependent system of walls, detachable barriers, pumping stations, and valves to protect a limited area of the city. If all of the above work at best they protect a portion of the city against flooding for a few years before rising sea levels overflow the walls during flood events. If any of those links fails (or water just seeps up through basements through the silty substrate under the city) they protect against nothing.

The council can't even organise sandbags with plenty warning of high tide, or temporarily improve cycle and pedestrian facilities when government are throwing money at them, do you honestly expect they'll be capable of maintaining that complex system and activating all the components when needed?

The tidal barrier, though probably more expensive, will protect everything from Lough Mahon upstream, have a longer lifespan, would be simpler to maintain with less single points of failure, and have next to no disruption to the city while constructing unlike the current plans which involve around 6 years of constant disruption as every quay and bridge connecting the city to the rest of the world is dug up, something traders in favour of walls seem to be forgetting.

I'm sure there's a few inaccuracies in that rant as it's been a while since I've looked into it but that's basically why I think walls are an inferior solution.

TheChizler

Eco eye did a program on this last year for anyone interested. I'm possibly biased but the OPW guy at the end didn't inspire confidence. Basically admitted that the plans were a bandage on the current problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3_pIZLJvRk

PreCocious

The OPW plan is quite complex and has a lot of moving parts - many valves, multiple pumping stations and what have you.

Twice in the last few years a single, simple flap valve has failed leading to seawater flooding in to the Atlantic Pond causing serious damage to the area including the heronry.

On each occasion it has taken the city council many weeks to repair this simple flap valve.

This is the same council which can't maintain automatic bollards on Oliver Plunkett and Maylor Streets.

It doesn't inspire confidence.

hans aus dtschl

TheChizler wrote: »

Eco eye did a program on this last year for anyone interested. I'm possibly biased but the OPW guy at the end didn't inspire confidence. Basically admitted that the plans were a bandage on the current problem.

But but but....

"A tidal barrier won't be economically viable for Cork until we have more than half a meter of sea level rise".

It's such a solid argument against building the tidal barrier, right?

Basically, it's the best long-term solution but the OPW say that it'll cost so much that they won't consider it.

Outkast_IRE

corkgsxr wrote: »

No need for barriers. Go back to dredging the river. Simple solution

I think dredging would have no effect on what occurred yesterday. As it was primarily due to a very high tide coinciding exactly with very low atmospheric pressure and a wind directly pushing water into the harbour. A combination of factors that dredging does not alleviate as you are literally fighting against sea level.

Outkast_IRE

Ultimately i think both schemes are needed , just at different points along our timeline.

A tidal barrier is not without its problems, in some scenarios the ecological impacts can be appreciable.

TheChizler

True there are some fluvial flooding events that will need engineering work upstream of the city, but nothing to do with what happened yesterday. In theory the ESB should be preventing those kind of events but I'm not sure that can be relied on. No the tidal barrier isn't perfect either, but something has to be done and the full long term benefits, complications, and value of both schemes need to be weighed up. As admitted in that video the OPW are only focused on the short term low-to-medium 'worst' case predictions, and if they go ahead with it we'll be having the same conversation in a few short years.

cantalach

TheChizler wrote: »

1. Anyone living in Cork is directly affected, whether by flooding or the destruction of the historic connection to the river. The importance you assign to either is subjective. If you can arbitrarily block people from objecting based on some subjective measure of how directly affected they are you might as well throw away the whole planning appeals system and let people do what they like.

I fully agree that defining an objective measure of "directly affected" would be challenging but there needs to be some limit because you otherwise get ludicrous stuff, e.g. the Port of Waterford objected to the Port of Cork's new container port in Ringaskiddy, SuperValu objected to the new Aldi/Lidl in Bantry, etc.

2. I never said most did, don't know, so I'm not sure why you'd make that point.

Because people commonly misread or misinterpret statements like you made, and would be under the impression that most businesses and residents supported Save Cork City. I was just clarifying what you wrote without disagreeing with it in the slightest.

TheChizler

cantalach wrote: »

I fully agree that defining an objective measure of "directly affected" would be challenging but there needs to be some limit because you otherwise get ludicrous stuff, e.g. the Port of Waterford objected to the Port of Cork's new container port in Ringaskiddy, SuperValu objected to the new Aldi/Lidl in Bantry, etc.

I'd agree if the act of objecting alone counted against a development, effectively turning it into a popularity contest, but it's not; an objection has to point out an objective legal argument against it which the planners or judge consider in it's own right regardless of the location of the complainant. If they can't do that it's given the same weight as someone posting on boards. It's unfortunate that a judical review adds time the planning process that an earlier objection doesn't but if ABP have erred in their procedures it's worth getting to the bottom of IMO. It's added a few months to a multi-year construction project, people were quoted as saying it would be half built by now were it not for savecorkcity which is ridiculous, was there any chance of it even starting this year? Would a contractor been selected yet?

Because people commonly misread or misinterpret statements like you made, and would be under the impression that most businesses and residents supported Save Cork City. I was just clarifying what you wrote without disagreeing with it in the slightest.

I'm not sure how anyone but the most careless of readers would interpret "most X are Y" as "most Y are X" but I'll take you at face value here.

AugustusMinimus

I’ve read others saying that a tidal barrier cannot stop fluvial flooding in the city. Absolute nonsense.

The tidal barriers can close before high tide leaving the water level in Lough Mahon and upstream well below the quay walls. The river can then discharge into Lough Mahon which would likely take weeks to fill with just the Lee alone. There’s no way the river could flood the city if the tidal barrier is used correctly.

blindsider

@The Chizler - thanks for the link to the EcoEye video!

The OPW chap said that talk of a 2m - 2.5m sea-level rise is extreme. But the walls they propose are only sufficient for a 0.5m rise. Surely, if 2.5m is extreme on one hand, then 0.5m is extreme on the other!

The cost of the walls scheme is between €100m and €200m (2017 prices) and the tidal barrier is €140m (2017).

HR Wallingford, who were commissioned by Save Cork City to examine the issue also said:

The Dutch say that when considering flood walls it is better to choose the shortest form of
defence as it is easier to predict the outcome, more economical to construct and to maintain and significantly it is less likely to fail. We refer you to Edgecombe in New Zealand which flooded extensively in April 2017 due to a small breach in a walls based flood protection system. We also refer to New Orleans in 2017 which flooded due to its own pump system not starting when required.

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/32/joint_committee_on_culture_heritage_and_the_gaeltacht/submissions/2017/2017-10-18_opening-statement-save-cork-city-mr-john-hegarty_en.pdf


It's never been cheaper to borrow money than it is is now. The ECB is 'giving' money away.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/banks-rush-to-borrow-record-1-3tn-at-negative-rates-from-ecb-1.4282382
Banks have rushed to borrow a record €1.3 trillion from the European Central Bank at deeply negative interest rates in the latest monetary policy drive to boost liquidity in the euro zone’s pandemic-stricken economy.

It is the first time that a major central bank has offered multiyear loans to banks at an interest rate below its main deposit rate, introducing a so-called dual-rate system.


I understand that the country is in a parlous state with Covid as well as everything else. It seems to me that the OPW are entrenched and won't admit they got it wrong. Time for people to stand up and call them out on this!

(I have absolutely no connection to Save our City - or any other interested party.)

alanucc

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

I’ve read others saying that a tidal barrier cannot stop fluvial flooding in the city. Absolute nonsense.

The tidal barriers can close before high tide leaving the water level in Lough Mahon and upstream well below the quay walls. The river can then discharge into Lough Mahon which would likely take weeks to fill with just the Lee alone. There’s no way the river could flood the city if the tidal barrier is used correctly.

There is an element of truth in your comment, but it's not the whole story. Keeping water levels in Lough Mahon low with a tidal barrier would help to reduce fluvial flood levels in the eastern part of the city centre. However for the really big fluvial floods like the 100 year event, the flow would still exceed the channel capacity and spill out regardless of the tide - particularly upstream of the Mercy.

To demonstrate this you only need to look at the 2009 event. I attached a water level graph taken from the river gauge which used to operate at Tyndall. The markups in red are mine, just trying to clarify what's shown.

You'll see that the flood actually rose on the falling tide, due to the magnitude of the flow coming from upstream. The gauge died during the peak of the event so not all of the river level data is there, but for sure the subsequent high tide prolonged/exacerbated the flood. However my point is that water had already spilled out and caused damage at Victoria Cross, UCC, Mardyke etc while the tide was down.

wally1990

I look forward to this thread again next year
Thanks goverment, council and whoever else
And every year afterwards

blindsider

alanucc wrote: »

There is an element of truth in your comment, but it's not the whole story. Keeping water levels in Lough Mahon low with a tidal barrier would help to reduce fluvial flood levels in the eastern part of the city centre. However for the really big fluvial floods like the 100 year event, the flow would still exceed the channel capacity and spill out regardless of the tide - particularly upstream of the Mercy.

To demonstrate this you only need to look at the 2009 event. I attached a water level graph taken from the river gauge which used to operate at Tyndall. The markups in red are mine, just trying to clarify what's shown.

You'll see that the flood actually rose on the falling tide, due to the magnitude of the flow coming from upstream. The gauge died during the peak of the event so not all of the river level data is there, but for sure the subsequent high tide prolonged/exacerbated the flood. However my point is that water had already spilled out and caused damage at Victoria Cross, UCC, Mardyke etc while the tide was down.

But wasn't 2009 an 'artificial' flood? The ESB added to the issue by opening Inniscarra. (I'm not getting into why, when, how etc - just a statement of fact.)

I am assuming that the dam won't be opened in a similar fashion again - therefore any future scenario will be different.

Also, if a tidal barrier is used properly, won't it be possible to create an 'artificial' temporary reservoir? Closing the tidal barrier at 'low water' would leave an empty Lough Mahon etc - plenty of room for the ebbing tide carrying the upstream water, and once the tide turns again, 12 hrs later, the barrier could be opened again? Couldn't this be done on successive days until the flood threat has passed?

2 Scenarios cause flooding:

1 - heavy and prolonged rainfall: Close the flood barrier at the end of 'low water'. Open it 12 hrs later at the start of the next 'Low water' cycle. 2-3 days later, the threat has passed...

2 - Tidal Surge - Spring tides are exacerbated by SE winds/gales: Close the tidal barrier until the start of 'low water' and the open it for 12 hrs.

Am I missing something?

corkgsxr

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

I think dredging would have no effect on what occurred yesterday. As it was primarily due to a very high tide coinciding exactly with very low atmospheric pressure and a wind directly pushing water into the harbour. A combination of factors that dredging does not alleviate as you are literally fighting against sea level.

Yes it will. The winds stop the river from draining effectively. Lower base height means lower flood water height.

Funny how dredging stopped and as the years go by we have worse issues with flooding.

AugustusMinimus

corkgsxr wrote: »

Yes it will. The winds stop the river from draining effectively. Lower base height means lower flood water height.

Funny how dredging stopped and as the years go by we have worse issues with flooding.

If the tide is held at say 2 meters below peak, there is no way any amount of conceivable discharge or wind could result in the city centre flooding.

alanucc

blindsider wrote: »

But wasn't 2009 an 'artificial' flood? The ESB added to the issue by opening Inniscarra. (I'm not getting into why, when, how etc - just a statement of fact.)

...

Am I missing something?

The channel capacity in the western half of the city centre gets exceeded at much lower flows than 2009. See this map for an idea - the 10%AEP (i.e. small flood) still floods out

I don't want to get into debating 2009 either, but would note that fluvial flood risk on the Lee is very real and "natural" - similar events to 2009 occurred in 1853, 1875 and 1916, all before the dams were built and before climate change started to bite. I think it would be foolish to think that similar events will never happen again (whether they will in our lifetime is another matter)

Padraig Mor

corkgsxr wrote: »

No need for barriers. Go back to dredging the river. Simple solution

It was dredged literally last month - dredger was around for a month.

Nerdlingr

Clonmel's flood defence barriers :

TheChizler

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Clonmel's flood defence barriers

Grand if you want to pretend the river doesn't exist

jetfiremuck

Dredging for the most part is the least intrusive and quickest method of seeing results. tidal barriers cost wise will end like the childrens hospital....overruns, not even thinking about eco analysis etc.

blindsider

alanucc wrote: »

The channel capacity in the western half of the city centre gets exceeded at much lower flows than 2009. See this map for an idea - the 10%AEP (i.e. small flood) still floods out

I don't want to get into debating 2009 either, but would note that fluvial flood risk on the Lee is very real and "natural" - similar events to 2009 occurred in 1853, 1875 and 1916, all before the dams were built and before climate change started to bite. I think it would be foolish to think that similar events will never happen again (whether they will in our lifetime is another matter)

I'm certainly not discounting major fluvial events, but I am concerned about events such as yesterday which seem all too regular.

I'd be interested to know how many of the previous flood events were tidal v fluvial

I appreciate the fact-based arguments (from e.g. AlanUCC) and I'll happily declare my lack of knowledge in this area.

I do have significant concerns that the OPW seem wedded to a scheme which is unsightly, potentially expensive (even compared to a tidal barrier), difficult to implement and maintain and less effective than another proposal.

Separately, I've seen no mention of dredging apart from a couple of short comments here.

saabsaab

Flooding in Cork city is likely to continue every year from now on. Sea levels are rising and a 0.5M rise is likely by the end of the century. Added to that is the fact that Cork is sinking into the ocean, I could be wrong but the rate is 1 cm every ten years!


Is it time to move and rebuild further inland and leave certain areas to the inevitable?

alanucc

blindsider wrote: »

I'd be interested to know how many of the previous flood events were tidal v fluvial

Have a look at figure 2-1 on page 4 here

Mefistofelino

blindsider wrote: »

I'm certainly not discounting major fluvial events, but I am concerned about events such as yesterday which seem all too regular.

I'd be interested to know how many of the previous flood events were tidal v fluvial

I appreciate the fact-based arguments (from e.g. AlanUCC) and I'll happily declare my lack of knowledge in this area.

I do have significant concerns that the OPW seem wedded to a scheme which is unsightly, potentially expensive (even compared to a tidal barrier), difficult to implement and maintain and less effective than another proposal.

Separately, I've seen no mention of dredging apart from a couple of short comments here.

Whatever about the OPW costs for their scheme, the idea that the tidal barrier can be constructed for €170 million seems utter mince. The shortest the barrier can be is approximately 1km which, coincidently, is about the same length as the tidal barrier in Cardiff which consists of a long stone barrage with a number of navigable gates in the middle. Twenty years ago, the Cardiff project ended up around £220 million (and has had quite a deleterious impact on the bay). Even the relatively piddley Bridgwater tidal barrier is now looking like costing more over £100 million (and it hasn't started yet).

Perhaps a tidal barrier is a better solution than the OPW proposal but we need to be going into it with our eyes fully open.

fonzy951

saabsaab wrote: »

Flooding in Cork city is likely to continue every year from now on. Sea levels are rising and a 0.5M rise is likely by the end of the century. Added to that is the fact that Cork is sinking into the ocean, I could be wrong but the rate is 1 cm every ten years!


Is it time to move and rebuild further inland and leave certain areas to the inevitable?

The Dutch have much greater issues with sea level rise than Cork and seem to have no problem in solving them, even reclaiming land from the sea. Every part of Cork city can be very easily protected, the Dutch would have no bother with it, that's for sure. They would probably get a fit of laughing if they saw the state of the existing quays, especially on Morrison's Island.

alanucc

saabsaab wrote: »

Added to that is the fact that Cork is sinking into the ocean, I could be wrong but the rate is 1 cm every ten years!

It's more like 0.5mm/year. Sorry don't have a source to hand

saabsaab

alanucc wrote: »

It's more like 0.5mm/year. Sorry don't have a source to hand

Fair enough, 1cm every 20 years.

saabsaab

fonzy951 wrote: »

The Dutch have much greater issues with sea level rise than Cork and seem to have no problem in solving them, even reclaiming land from the sea. Every part of Cork city can be very easily protected, the Dutch would have no bother with it, that's for sure. They would probably get a fit of laughing if they saw the state of the existing quays, especially on Morrison's Island.

They don't have the direct wild atlantic hitting them with as much force. Also there is the expected earthquake tsunami which could destroy any vulnerable costal areas.

sheff_

saabsaab wrote: »

They don't have the direct wild atlantic hitting them with as much force. Also there is the expected earthquake tsunami which could destroy any vulnerable costal areas.

Cork City is 20km upriver from Roches Point. We're not exactly taking a Lahinch style battering from the Atlantic. I'm sure North Sea storms can give the Dutch anything we see in Cork.

Mefistofelino

fonzy951 wrote: »

The Dutch have much greater issues with sea level rise than Cork and seem to have no problem in solving them, even reclaiming land from the sea. Every part of Cork city can be very easily protected, the Dutch would have no bother with it, that's for sure. They would probably get a fit of laughing if they saw the state of the existing quays, especially on Morrison's Island.

While the Dutch are masters at flood management, it's not exactly been "no problem" . Protecting the country has had a massive financial cost. Even the annual cost of maintenance and remediation of the existing defenses is in the billions .
And even then, it hasn't always been successful - it's not even 70 years since the floods of 58 when about 10% of the country ended up under water and over 1800 people died.

But you're dead right, they'ld laugh at the scale of our issues.

saabsaab

Mefistofelino wrote: »

While the Dutch are masters at flood management, it's not exactly been "no problem" . Protecting the country has had a massive financial cost. Even the annual cost of maintenance and remediation of the existing defenses is in the billions .
And even then, it hasn't always been successful - it's not even 70 years since the floods of 58 when about 10% of the country ended up under water and over 1800 people died.

But you're dead right, they'ld laugh at the scale of our issues.

Maybe we could ask them to come over and give us a quote for the job?

blindsider

Ah but we did!

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20470398.html

Experts at the Delft University (TU Delft) in the Netherlands, who were asked to review the OPW’s €450m-€1bn cost estimate of a tidal barrier at Little Island, say they believe it could be built for just under €200m.

They described the tidal barrier proposal as “an interesting and attractive option” which warrants further investigation.

The report was commissioned by the Save Cork City (SCC) group, which is leading the opposition to the OPW’s reliance on raised quay walls as part of its Cork flood defence plan.

SCC has repeatedly called for the construction of a tidal barrier at Little Island to protect the city from flooding and released a report it commissioned last year from HR Wallingford which put the cost at between €110m and €180m.

However, the OPW has repeatedly ruled out a tidal barrier on cost and engineering grounds, insisting it could cost anything from €450m to €1bn and while possible from an engineering perspective, it would do nothing to prevent fluvial or river flooding of Cork city centre.

However, SCC said the emergence of this second independent report which questions the OPW’s cost estimates shows that the tidal barrier option must be considered further.

The TU Delft experts said it appears from their review of the OPW’s costs that the body applied a unit rate for tidal sector gates to simpler tidal sluice gates — an approach it said is “not considered appropriate” and which would result in an “unrealistic cost estimate”.

On their first review of the tidal barrier costs, they said a tidal barrier at Little Island could cost around €258m, with the comparable OPW cost of €340m.

A second review would result in a cost below €200m, they said.

The development of a more detailed, and project-specific cost estimate for the Little Island tidal barrier is highly recommended, the experts said.

The Irish Examiner asked the OPW to comment on the TU Delft conclusions and recommendations but a spokesman said the agency could not comment on a report it has not seen in full.

SCC spokesman John Hegarty said the tidal barrier represents the best solution for the city.

“There is still time to address the issue and not destroy Cork with the walls scheme,” he said.

I presume the OPW found the time to review this report......?

Markcheese

Most of the businesses and buildings that flooded ,are the same buildings that always flood ... And a lot of the time not by a lot ,
City council could pass a byelaw requiring building owners to put flood barriers in front of their entrances ,(and non return valves on the sewer pipes )

It wouldn't fix every problem ,but it'd be a start , some Morrison's island / south terrace works are pretty necessary as well ....

Dropping the level of the water at carrigadroichead ,would seriously reduce flood risk from the lee ,and restore the geragh ,and could be done at a stroke ..

saabsaab

blindsider wrote: »

Ah but we did!

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20470398.html

Experts at the Delft University (TU Delft) in the Netherlands, who were asked to review the OPW’s €450m-€1bn cost estimate of a tidal barrier at Little Island, say they believe it could be built for just under €200m.

They described the tidal barrier proposal as “an interesting and attractive option” which warrants further investigation.

The report was commissioned by the Save Cork City (SCC) group, which is leading the opposition to the OPW’s reliance on raised quay walls as part of its Cork flood defence plan.

SCC has repeatedly called for the construction of a tidal barrier at Little Island to protect the city from flooding and released a report it commissioned last year from HR Wallingford which put the cost at between €110m and €180m.

However, the OPW has repeatedly ruled out a tidal barrier on cost and engineering grounds, insisting it could cost anything from €450m to €1bn and while possible from an engineering perspective, it would do nothing to prevent fluvial or river flooding of Cork city centre.

However, SCC said the emergence of this second independent report which questions the OPW’s cost estimates shows that the tidal barrier option must be considered further.

The TU Delft experts said it appears from their review of the OPW’s costs that the body applied a unit rate for tidal sector gates to simpler tidal sluice gates — an approach it said is “not considered appropriate” and which would result in an “unrealistic cost estimate”.

On their first review of the tidal barrier costs, they said a tidal barrier at Little Island could cost around €258m, with the comparable OPW cost of €340m.

A second review would result in a cost below €200m, they said.

The development of a more detailed, and project-specific cost estimate for the Little Island tidal barrier is highly recommended, the experts said.

The Irish Examiner asked the OPW to comment on the TU Delft conclusions and recommendations but a spokesman said the agency could not comment on a report it has not seen in full.

SCC spokesman John Hegarty said the tidal barrier represents the best solution for the city.

“There is still time to address the issue and not destroy Cork with the walls scheme,” he said.

I presume the OPW found the time to review this report......?

Great post, thanks. I read somewhere that the walls idea won't work anyway.

cantalach

blindsider wrote: »

Experts at the Delft University (TU Delft) in the Netherlands, who were asked to review the OPW’s €450m-€1bn cost estimate of a tidal barrier at Little Island, say they believe it could be built for just under €200m.

[...]

The report was commissioned by the Save Cork City (SCC) group, which is leading the opposition to the OPW’s reliance on raised quay walls as part of its Cork flood defence plan.

I’m not qualified to say whether a tidal barrier would be better or worse. But I do know that when reading any report done by academics and their grad students, one of the most important things to look at is is who funded the work. When I worked in that environment 25 years ago, our sponsors always got the results they wanted...

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

€180m for the cork tidal barrier of 1km length when Maeslantkering in Holland cost €660m for a third of the length?

We should go with SaveCorkCity's proposal if they guarantee to pay any cost over their €180m!

TheChizler

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup wrote: »

€180m for the cork tidal barrier of 1km length when Maeslantkering in Holland cost €660m for a third of the length?

We should go with SaveCorkCity's proposal if they guarantee to pay any cost over their €180m!

Even if it costs at much as the OPW finger-in-the-air estimate it protects multiples of the area with at least twice the lifespan so good value in my book.

Markcheese

If the opw are going to do it then think of a large number , double it , ... Now broaden the project ...
Clench your buttocks when the consulting engineers come back with a works estimate ... ( That part has now swallowed your original budget ) tender it ...
Then estimate to pay double the the original tender for related works ...

Oh and make sure the scheme needs just one more component to work .. ( but you didn't build that ) ,
And that there's a special key needed, buts held by a bloke who's on holidays in majorca when the flood water hits ...
And that's for either the city quays or a harbour flood barrier ...